4 ms·

If people are trying to pay loans back with degrees that don't lead to good jobs, surely that's a problem, right? If you think that large amounts of people bein

by qntty 7y ago

If people are trying to pay loans back with degrees that don't lead to good jobs, surely that's a problem, right? If you think that large amounts of people being unable to pay loans back is a problem, that is.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Sure, but that could be a problem for any number of different reasons, and the article doesn’t provide any insight into what they might be. Are people being deceived in some way into thinking that particular degrees are more marketable than they actually are? Are degrees that are thought to be very marketable (and perhaps once were) no longer very marketable? Are people knowingly choosing to do degrees that are known to be unmarketable? All of those things are completely different problems. The article doesn’t give me any insight into what the problem might be, and doesn’t actually provide much more insight than I could have gotten from looking at two graphs.
- qntty 7y ago
  This isn't an article about the morality of student loans. It's about the economy. If the economy is struggling because of people unable to pay student loans, that's a problem. Doesn't matter whether it was 'right' that it ended up this way. The problem is that people have student loans that they are unable to pay. How to solve it is another issue.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    The article doesn’t make any case for the economy struggling. ‘Struggling’ in this context would mean that there’s less skilled employment opportunities available than there used to be. The article doesn’t put forward any argument to say that’s the case. With increasing enrolments, the economy could be doing great and still produce underemployment. The question is why are people completing unmarketable (or not sufficiently marketable) degrees? The article provides no insight into what the answer to the question might be. ‘Many degrees are less marketable than the used to be’ is one (partial) explanation. But it’s not the only potential explanation, it’s not obviously the correct explanation, and it’s not an explanation that the article provides any content to support.
    - cf141q5325 7y ago
      >The question is why are people completing unmarketable (or not sufficiently marketable) degrees? For the pursuit of knowledge. Universities are not job training. You getting a good job with your degree is a bonus not the intend outcome for a university.
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        That explanation likely accounts for some of the underemployment. How much, I’m not sure, perhaps a lot of it. Now, this still leaves people with a debt they may be unable to service. Which is still a problem, and raises its own set of questions. But it’s a completely different problem to any of the other potential explanations.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        That used to be called a "liberal education", which meant an education that was appropriate for free men, as opposed to slaves, who would be trained in a trade. Today, that corresponds to pursuing knowledge if you don't need the money. If you do, pursue something that pays. (Pursue as much knowledge as you can work in around the edges, but the main focus has to be on something that pays.)
        mamon 7y ago
        Ok, so are you saying that there should be no student loans on humanities degrees? Because that's the logical conclusion of what you're saying here. Would it make sense for the government to make a list of fields where they do back up student loans (which would probably be mostly STEM fields)?
        ericd 7y ago
        Perhaps the loan requirements should be more stringent on fields that are unlikely to support repayment for people that aren’t in a financial position to repay them? Not very different to lending in other areas of life. Or remove the non-dischargeability and the govt backing at the same time, and let interest rates and lending requirements fall where they may.

by qntty 7y ago

AmericanChopper 7y ago

Sure, but that could be a problem for any number of different reasons, and the article doesn’t provide any insight into what they might be. Are people being deceived in some way into thinking that particular degrees are more marketable than they actually are? Are degrees that are thought to be very marketable (and perhaps once were) no longer very marketable? Are people knowingly choosing to do degrees that are known to be unmarketable? All of those things are completely different problems. The article doesn’t give me any insight into what the problem might be, and doesn’t actually provide much more insight than I could have gotten from looking at two graphs.

qntty 7y ago
This isn't an article about the morality of student loans. It's about the economy. If the economy is struggling because of people unable to pay student loans, that's a problem. Doesn't matter whether it was 'right' that it ended up this way. The problem is that people have student loans that they are unable to pay. How to solve it is another issue.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  The article doesn’t make any case for the economy struggling. ‘Struggling’ in this context would mean that there’s less skilled employment opportunities available than there used to be. The article doesn’t put forward any argument to say that’s the case. With increasing enrolments, the economy could be doing great and still produce underemployment. The question is why are people completing unmarketable (or not sufficiently marketable) degrees? The article provides no insight into what the answer to the question might be. ‘Many degrees are less marketable than the used to be’ is one (partial) explanation. But it’s not the only potential explanation, it’s not obviously the correct explanation, and it’s not an explanation that the article provides any content to support.
  - cf141q5325 7y ago
    >The question is why are people completing unmarketable (or not sufficiently marketable) degrees? For the pursuit of knowledge. Universities are not job training. You getting a good job with your degree is a bonus not the intend outcome for a university.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      That explanation likely accounts for some of the underemployment. How much, I’m not sure, perhaps a lot of it. Now, this still leaves people with a debt they may be unable to service. Which is still a problem, and raises its own set of questions. But it’s a completely different problem to any of the other potential explanations.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      That used to be called a "liberal education", which meant an education that was appropriate for free men, as opposed to slaves, who would be trained in a trade. Today, that corresponds to pursuing knowledge if you don't need the money. If you do, pursue something that pays. (Pursue as much knowledge as you can work in around the edges, but the main focus has to be on something that pays.)
      - mamon 7y ago
        Ok, so are you saying that there should be no student loans on humanities degrees? Because that's the logical conclusion of what you're saying here. Would it make sense for the government to make a list of fields where they do back up student loans (which would probably be mostly STEM fields)?
        ericd 7y ago
        Perhaps the loan requirements should be more stringent on fields that are unlikely to support repayment for people that aren’t in a financial position to repay them? Not very different to lending in other areas of life. Or remove the non-dischargeability and the govt backing at the same time, and let interest rates and lending requirements fall where they may.